Talk:Litigation involving Apple Inc.

Footnotes

Your footnotes aren't working, and I can now see why. When you split this article from Apple Computer you didn't move the footnotes over. I've not fixed it myself as I'm not familiar with the referencing scheme you use (I prefer <ref> [1]).

Not sure if you've used it or not, but this is a nice article: [2] --kingboyk 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sagan

I've sourced the Sagan assertion, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to competently cite it. Here is the header, from Lexis:

CARL SAGAN, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant
CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
874 F. Supp. 1072; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154 
June 27, 1994, Decided  
June 27, 1994, FILED

Proposed merge

I agree with the proposed merge of Butt-Head Astronomer into this article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs HP section

Contains the sentence "Many consider this to be a specious argument, however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely stole the MacOS GUI design from the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer". As far as I know this is not correct, Apple paid for that usage, did it not? Mikkel 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• PARC was compensated in return for allowing Apple to visit PARC. Apple did not walk out with screenshots or code. Obviously they were inspired by what they saw. Personally, I'd re-word that sentence to say something more like: "due to the fact that Apple's Mac OS GUI design was inspired by what they saw of the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer." But to say that it also matters how much of the Mac OS GUI was inspired by PARC and how much they'd already been working towards some of that stuff before PARC. If it truly ALL started w/ the PARC visit, I'd leave as is, but I thought some of that stuff they'd already been thinking about. But I have no plans to do any of this research right now and that would have to be done before changing this. I know there's good material out there about this, esp. in books. Also "Many consider this to be a specious argument" needs citation. Who is the "many"?

--Jason C.K. 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd go further and delete the whole section "Some say that Apple was at fault because they were hoarding a superior input system that would put all competitors out of business. Others say Microsoft stole Apple's ideas, and it would have been possible to create a GUI that would not infringe on their copyright. Many consider this to be a specious argument, [verification needed] however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely based the Mac OS GUI design on the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer." Apple lost its case. The rest is editorializing unless notable sources are cited.--agr 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree...I did put a "verify source" tag on that...if no one fixes that up in a week, delete it all?

--Jason C.K. 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Itunes.co.uk

"nominet responded by publishing facts" Perhaps a link to the facts or quoteing them would help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.135.133 (talk • contribs) .

Apple vs Apple

This case is of interest not only to Apple Computer enthusiasts but also to Beatles fans. Currently Apple Corps sends them here for a full analysis of the dispute. Also, I believe the earlier agreement may have some legal significance too? Therefore, if anyone here is able to flesh the story out into a full, seperate article it would be an idea I'd support. --kingboyk 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've forked this out to Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. Please expand it if you can. --kingboyk 17:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"*Some say* that Apple was at fault... *Many* consider this to be a specious argument..."

Can someone please clean the article up from these statements and/or add some references? Rm999

• Any weaselly words that annoy you, go put a {{fact}} or {{verify source}} or some other tag on it in the article text. Guidelines here. If it remains unsourced for a week or more, consider deleting the unsubstantiated words.

--Jason C.K. 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

section order

Should the sections be ordered chronologically or based on notability? Regardless the order of the cases needs to be looked at and organized better. I think it would work nicely if they were ordered chronologically based on when the case was first brought to court. This would result in this order:

• Apple v. Apple (1978)
• Apple v. Franklin (1982)
• Apple v. Mackintosh (1986)
• Apple v. Microsoft (1988)
• Carl Sagan (1994)
• Abdul Traya (1998)
• Ben Cohen (2000)
• Apple v. Does (2004)
• iPod Class action (2005)

Additional sections would need to be created for the eMachines lawsuit and the GEM lawsuit out of the GUI section currently at the top. Paul^C/_T+ 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised this, as I was wondering the same. (I'm a Beatles Apple person, but I kinda like this page :)). I think chronologically, as you've suggested, would work. Go for it! --kingboyk 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple v. Does latest info.

I don't really have the time to do this, but Ars just did a nice report of the Apple v. Does lawsuit and the latest decision that was handed down. If someone could incorporate it into the article it would be very helpful. [3] Paul^C/_T+ 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs. Does and Apple Vs Think Secret

I've seperated out the "Apple vs. Does" case from Apple's law suit against Think Secret over its alledged trade secrets violation. There's no connection between the two cases, other than they happened at roughly the same time. The article on Apple vs Think Secret is a stub - I'll expand if/when I have time. Ianbetteridge 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cisco v. Apple

I think there's gonna be lawsuit from Cisco because they trademarked "iPhone" first. So we need to add that soon. 168.254.226.175 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (or Awesimo)

I added addational informaiotn and cleared up the lawsuit article, which appeared to have the stance that Apple and Cisco were almost settled, which was not the case accordint to Cnet.--Zeeboid 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

Should this be renamed to "Notable litigation of Apple Inc."? Shawnc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple, Lugz, and the Postal Service

I was wondering if it was appropriate to have entries reguarding Apple "borrowing" Lugz's ads and "remaking" the Postal Service's music video? Immortal Time Keeper 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

merge

I think that this page should be merged with the main Apple inc. page on Wikipedia. It should be done.

eMachines

This article and iMac each direct the reader to the other article with regard to the eOne lawsuit. Romperomperompe 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nokia

There is a current patent dispute with Nokia. The article should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.228.72 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Maybe the Carl Sagan link, at the top of the lawsuit concerning him, should be changed to the part in his article regarding Apple?